WHEN Mr. Eusi Kwayana fires, his aim is not to disarm but to ensure specific objectives are achieved. Speaker Raphael Trotman of the opposition AFC has justifiably ruled that the Home Affairs Minister has every constitutional, legal right to speak in Parliament. No longer would he be subjected to ‘a Diddle, Diddle Dumpling, my son Clement, gagged by the opposition in  parliament,  one shoe off, and one shoe on, by the grace of Trotman all now gone.

The opposition wanted him gagged because of Linden, not Agricola.  Enter Mr. Kwayana as the supreme judge to hold Mr. Rohee again responsible for all Linden’s wickedness where three lives were needlessly lost.
In a letter to the SN on 2/22/13 titled, “The lack of comment on Minister Rohee’s conduct after the Linden shooting is disturbing”, the ancient Mighty Echo awakens to bring a Daniel to judgement. He wants his pound of flesh. (Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice). Those commuters, mostly Indian people harassed at Agricola are not his concern.
Has Mr. Kwayana awakened from a sleeping sickness? Or is he sleepless after finding Guyanese apathetic with “the lack of comment on the minister’s conduct after (concluding) the Linden shooting is disturbing.”
A commission of Inquiry has met and all evidence has been presented. Why this harkening back hubbub?   Mr. Kwayana better be careful. He may be found complicit in the deaths of those Lindeners and guilty for all the destruction, inclusive of Agricola.
Mr. Kwayana proclaims that, “whenever and wherever there is a fatal shooting by the police, the Minister of Home Affairs cannot be left out.” So who is guilty of aiding and abetting, organising, inciting and now disturbingly condoning rioting at Linden and Agricola? Is the Home Affairs Minister automatically guilty because he is sworn to preserve law and order and also guilty of causing the ensuing mayhem?
California Kwayana cannot be clearer than asserting the right to break the law without facing the consequences.  Overnight he becomes a  lawyer  and quotes the Police Act.To me, the fact that the minister was not on the spot is not important.  He does not have to be on the spot to be responsible.
The President charged the minister with responsibility for the police under Article 107.  The minister cannot escape political and constitutional responsibility. The Police Act says, “The Commissioner shall be subject to the general orders and directions of the minister, have the command and supervision of the Force and shall be responsible to the minister for peace and good order throughout Guyana.” (Section 6)
Then he does a quick about-turn, demurely conceding, “This is not on the face of its criminal responsibility. Evidence must establish criminal responsibility.”
All the historical evidence has been clear of past complicities. Immediately after the 1964 brutal murder of the elderly Sealey family aback of Buxton and the enraged emotional fallout, Indians were brutally massacred at Wismar on May 26 in revenge. A saintly Mr. Kwayana cannot remain silent why he failed to prevent such a horror.  He himself admits taking charge of Buxton’s defences during Guyana’s most troubling times. What motivated preparing Buxton’s defences for a counter attack which he also admits never came but more so if there was no association?
The ancient Mighty Echo cannot still be very pleased that 1964 Police Commissioner Mr. P.G. Owen flatly refused to provide protection for Indians prior to the massacre? Was Commissioner Owen in compliance with the same Police Act when then PPP  Home Affairs Minister Mrs. Janet Jagan resigned in disgust because he refused to do his sworn duty?
Until Mr. Kwayana is able to reconcile the uncertain shooting of Lindeners in 2012 with the historical massacre of Indians in 1964, he cannot escape responsibility because “he does not have to be on the spot to be responsible”! Interpol still exists.
Mr. Kwayana faults PNC leader Brigadier General Mr. David Granger and his own WPA Dr Rupert Roopnarine who “it seems, (as) APNU, agreed in the name of the people without consulting the people of Region 10 and then corrected  (sic) it when the people rejected the high-handed decision”. Mr. Kwayana is, of course, also, again very disturbed that the PPP/C government democratically held talks with the top leadership of the PNC who control Linden.
Arising from the ashen smoky haze comes forth Mr. Kwayana’s legendary wisdom, after the fact, that the PPP/C government should have dealt directly with the Linden rabble instead of their PNC leaders.  He fumes  that the PPP/C “government had been in office for 20 years and should have known the proper (sic) Region 10 authorities to bargain with, rather than bargain with proxies”. What makes him more representative and lesser  a  proxy by this misplaced  fretting?  Keeping hope or hate alive? What Mr. Kwayana is questioning is the internal PNC rights to decide who legitimately speaks for them.   He can go tell it on the mountain if they would pay him heed, having been expelled from the same PNC. Moreover, Mr. Kwayana has no celebrated management skills or relevant experiences to give advice on how to run government business so far removed as he is in a new century and in California.
All Guyanese come under Mr Kwayana’s fire, cognisant that the obvious transparent objective of  his fusillade aims directly to ricochet at the Linden Commission of Inquiry report. What does the village sage know from afar that so disturbs?
Mr. Kwayana could care not of the unfairness of Lindeners rioting to continue paying considerably less for electricity when all Guyanese are paying substantially more.  Mr. Kwayana is even  more emboldened and justified in such barefaced entitlement to admonish that “both the (PPP/C government and the PNC) parties to the agreement, claimed by the government and not acknowledged by the other showed a surprising lack of respect for the people who really had to pay the electricity rates. They both believed, falsely, that the people had handed over their destinies to the parties”.
Mr. Kwayana wants to make us all fools to believe that any conciliatory or future “respect” would find eager Lindeners lining up in droves to pay their fair share. Mr Kwayana is too immersed in stories of Brer Anancy paying his dues if he is “respected”, because he hangs upside down.
Nevertheless, could the celebrated nonconformist be advising us that whenever the current top PNC leadership negotiates with the Government of Guyana for its predominantly black constituencies that they must not to be taken seriously as they are wrong?  That his selective condoning of confrontational street violence outside Guyana’s democracy is preferable rather than meaningful negotiations?
That his colourful past sanctifies and legitimises a privileged elevation to admonishingly wag his finger at the error of their terrible ways seen in their many stupid decisions?  That the democratically elected negotiators are completely wrong, more so after “both believed, falsely, that the people had handed over their destinies to the parties”?  Then why not permanent street violence? Why have elections in a democracy and why the demand for shared government when Mr. Kwayana alone has all the solutions?